Dear Editor,
HART comprises a group of volunteer professionals, doctors and scientists unequivocally committed to evidence-based policy making and the precautionary principle. We have no external funding. We believe that high quality science is aided by debate and argument and thank the BMJ for the opportunity to respond. We found the employment of baseless smears, innuendo and guilt by association against HART and others to be disappointing, unhelpful and unprofessional.
We formed HART in response to the dominant narrative that coalesced early during the pandemic before much data was available. Our goal is to test, challenge and question aspects of that narrative in the highest traditions of scientific discourse. We fully support effective and safe vaccines. We are in favour of practical and evidence-based public health measures.
We have publicly raised concerns about vaccination mandates and certificates, the public health impact of lockdown measures, zero-covid targets, masking effectiveness and harms, vaccination of post-infected persons, school closures and vaccinating children to protect adults, amongst other issues that should give pause to serious policy makers planning for future pandemics. We have been surprised to have been met with highly personalised attempts to discredit us rather than mature scientific debate.
We believe many of our concerns will turn out to be justified in the long term, and possibly sooner. As in any scientific debate, we of course recognise that some of our genuine concerns may turn out to have been misplaced as further evidence emerges. We disagree with the proposal that any “contrarian messages” should not “be able to influence policy”. We further disagree with the idea of “revoking the license [sic] to practise” in order to “punish doctors” who raise questions about public health policy, in good faith, in public discourse.
We regard the article as a transparent and quite unsubtle paradigm of a technique they themselves unashamedly promote called “prebunking” (the use of “persuasive but false argument to trigger the [informational] ‘immune system’”). It is littered with evangelism, invective, hysteria and hyperbole constituting, ironically, misinformation in our view. We trust that cooler heads will prevail at the formal inquiry.
For the avoidance of doubt, and with a gentle eye-roll, we point out that we have not made any claims about “bioweapons facilities” in Wuhan, “5G technology having deleterious effects”, or that Bill Gates had “foreknowledge of the pandemic” nor claimed “miracle cures” for covid exist.
HART were among the first to raise concerns about vaccine side effects (including myo/pericarditis, clotting issues and death), overdiagnosis in the post-infectious period and the failure of vaccines to prevent infection. These were all smeared as “misinformation” – all are now widely accepted as true.
We deplore abandoning core ethical principles such as adults having a duty to protect children, informed consent and bodily autonomy. We do not understand why the expert formal UK pandemic plan, effectively implemented by Sweden, was swiftly abandoned and replaced by snap decision-making predicated on panic and fear.
We recall the Health Secretary stating in the House of Commons: “This vaccine will not be used on children, it hasn’t been tested on children and the reason is that the likelihood of children having significant detriment if they catch covid is very very low.” [1]
We are not sure why this sensible policy was subsequently ditched.
In conclusion, we again thank the BMJ for the opportunity to refute the groundless allegations made in the article above and invite readers to draw their own conclusions as to the credibility of authors who struggle to evidence many of the, frankly, wild claims they make against HART group and others.
Reference:
1 Covid-19 Update – Hansard – UK Parliament. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2020-11-10/debates/FB5296EC-628D-4… (accessed 27 Nov 2022).
In defence of evidence-based policy making